CHERRIES chairman Jeff Mostyn believes existing financial fair play rules are unfair and unsuitable for all clubs in the Championship.

Mostyn was speaking after a vote to amend four of the current regulations – of which Cherries were in favour – had been defeated earlier this week.

Cherries were one of a number of clubs hoping to see limits increased in relation to boosting the level of acceptable losses and permitted owner investment.

The rules are designed to ensure clubs break even over a three-year period, although vast parachute payments to teams relegated from the Premier League have been a sticking point.

Championship clubs were permitted to lose a maximum of £8million – or £3m if an owner did not inject equity – during 2013-14 and three of the proposals were to increase the limits to either £10m, £11.4m or £12.8m.

Along with all other Championship clubs, Cherries, who in April revealed losses of more than £15m for the financial year to the end of July 2013, must report figures to the Football League in December.

A Football League spokesperson confirmed there were no plans to release these figures to the media but said possible sanctions for clubs exceeding the limits included a transfer embargo, points deduction and fine.

Mostyn told the Daily Echo: “We believe it is unfair where you have clubs dropping into the Championship from the Premier League with a first-year parachute payment of £23m under the new £5.5billion television deal, while we are having to comply with existing rules made prior to the new deal by a majority of clubs who are no longer in the Sky Bet Championship.

“That is the frustration which is shared by most Championship clubs not in receipt of any parachute payment. The new proposals were only made to try to bridge the gap.

“The clubs are all determined to continue dialogue until a successful formula can be found. Ironically, the status quo does not suit any of the clubs as all voted for various degrees of change.”

Comments (23)

I understand the necessity to have something in place, to prevent clubs going down with huge debts, yet on the other hand, these rules prevent Maxim from investing to help us to grow. It also makes me wonder about the legality of it, as surely the FL are preventing an owner from growing his own business, with HIS money!!

I understand the necessity to have something in place, to prevent clubs going down with huge debts, yet on the other hand, these rules prevent Maxim from investing to help us to grow. It also makes me wonder about the legality of it, as surely the FL are preventing an owner from growing his own business, with HIS money!!Afcbpete

Typically for afcb that for the first time in our history we actually have money to buy good players but won't be able to bcos of FFP restrictions. Understand why they're in place but frustrating as Eddie could build a really top team.

Typically for afcb that for the first time in our history we actually have money to buy good players but won't be able to bcos of FFP restrictions. Understand why they're in place but frustrating as Eddie could build a really top team.BishopforEngland

If it forces wealthy owners to engineer large sponsorship deals then that has to be a good thing for the club. That way the money is gifted rather than loaned and this reduces the chances of the clubs going into administration when the owner pulls out.

If it forces wealthy owners to engineer large sponsorship deals then that has to be a good thing for the club. That way the money is gifted rather than loaned and this reduces the chances of the clubs going into administration when the owner pulls out.Wilkie

Of course he thinks the rules are unfair. The club he runs is p1ssing money up the wall and has a huge operating loss. It has a massive wage bill and can only attract at most 11k fans.

It's no wonder ticket prices have jumped so much, got to try and reduce that operating loss.

Of course he thinks the rules are unfair. The club he runs is p1ssing money up the wall and has a huge operating loss. It has a massive wage bill and can only attract at most 11k fans.
It's no wonder ticket prices have jumped so much, got to try and reduce that operating loss.strippervicar

Of course it's unfair look at cardiff city 62 million from tv rights parachute payments of I believe 27 million so how can the clubs in the championship compete financially against these figures

Of course it's unfair look at cardiff city 62 million from tv rights parachute payments of I believe 27 million so how can the clubs in the championship compete financially against these figuresalasdair1967

I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,

I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,pabotto

FFP in some form or other is definitely needed, although I'm not sure the rules in their current form are as good as they could be - there's lots of potential holes to exploit and ways around things. FFP currently is a dog's dinner and it was quite right to discuss tweaking and changing it recently. It's the first iteration and like most things it will need time to settle down.

The parachute payments make it total mockery of it though.

FFP in some form or other is definitely needed, although I'm not sure the rules in their current form are as good as they could be - there's lots of potential holes to exploit and ways around things. FFP currently is a dog's dinner and it was quite right to discuss tweaking and changing it recently. It's the first iteration and like most things it will need time to settle down.
The parachute payments make it total mockery of it though.mark.s

pabotto wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,

I totally understand where you're coming from. I was horrified when we first learnt that Maxim was charging the club 6% interest. But times have dramatically moved on, and for the better IMHO. I believe, he has since converted loans into shares, which surely not only shows even more intent on his part, but financially takes that risk away from us facing a potential black hole!!

[quote][p][bold]pabotto[/bold] wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,[/p][/quote]I totally understand where you're coming from. I was horrified when we first learnt that Maxim was charging the club 6% interest. But times have dramatically moved on, and for the better IMHO. I believe, he has since converted loans into shares, which surely not only shows even more intent on his part, but financially takes that risk away from us facing a potential black hole!!Afcbpete

I don't think its about the fact that clubs are limited to losses most of us are moaning about. It's about having a level playing field i.e fair play. If you have spent wisely and built your club to a large one, big ground large fan base then you should have more money to spend. The only way to do this is at sometime someone has to invest. like Brighton has done. When, take Brighton for instance gets say 28000 fans @ say £35.00 = £980,000
23 home matches = 22540000 that doesn't even cover the 1st year parachute payment. Surly its up to the prem clubs to ensure that its in the players contract that wages drop if the club gets relegated then no need for parachute payments. Maybe I am not seeing something here but I thought it was meant to be fair play.

I don't think its about the fact that clubs are limited to losses most of us are moaning about. It's about having a level playing field i.e fair play. If you have spent wisely and built your club to a large one, big ground large fan base then you should have more money to spend. The only way to do this is at sometime someone has to invest. like Brighton has done. When, take Brighton for instance gets say 28000 fans @ say £35.00 = £980,000
23 home matches = 22540000 that doesn't even cover the 1st year parachute payment. Surly its up to the prem clubs to ensure that its in the players contract that wages drop if the club gets relegated then no need for parachute payments. Maybe I am not seeing something here but I thought it was meant to be fair play.swanagecherrie

pabotto wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,

No different to Abramovic loaning money to Chelsea, obviously on a far lesser scale. The Glazers financed Man utd with a 750million loan secured sgainst the club, so loans are common-place in football. On the positive side Max is unlikely to walk away whilst he has money tied up in the club and even less likely to put the club into administration. I get the feeling that Max is frustrated that he can't put more money into the club to move things along faster.
Regarding FFP,whist i understand the rationale behind it, i find it contradictory. I thought that the idea was to create a level playing field, and yet, we have clubs awash with premier league money in this division, buying up all the best players, which obviously gives them an unfair advantage.
We have a wealthy owner that genuinely wants to grow the club, but is being hampered by these unfair rules. What are the FL saying here??? That small clubs shall forever remain small, no matter how much ambition and finance they have at their disposal.FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY... don't make me laugh.!!!!

[quote][p][bold]pabotto[/bold] wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,[/p][/quote]No different to Abramovic loaning money to Chelsea, obviously on a far lesser scale. The Glazers financed Man utd with a 750million loan secured sgainst the club, so loans are common-place in football. On the positive side Max is unlikely to walk away whilst he has money tied up in the club and even less likely to put the club into administration. I get the feeling that Max is frustrated that he can't put more money into the club to move things along faster.
Regarding FFP,whist i understand the rationale behind it, i find it contradictory. I thought that the idea was to create a level playing field, and yet, we have clubs awash with premier league money in this division, buying up all the best players, which obviously gives them an unfair advantage.
We have a wealthy owner that genuinely wants to grow the club, but is being hampered by these unfair rules. What are the FL saying here??? That small clubs shall forever remain small, no matter how much ambition and finance they have at their disposal.FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY... don't make me laugh.!!!!STEADY EDDIE 1 for the road

swanagecherrie wrote:
I don't think its about the fact that clubs are limited to losses most of us are moaning about. It's about having a level playing field i.e fair play. If you have spent wisely and built your club to a large one, big ground large fan base then you should have more money to spend. The only way to do this is at sometime someone has to invest. like Brighton has done. When, take Brighton for instance gets say 28000 fans @ say £35.00 = £980,000
23 home matches = 22540000 that doesn't even cover the 1st year parachute payment. Surly its up to the prem clubs to ensure that its in the players contract that wages drop if the club gets relegated then no need for parachute payments. Maybe I am not seeing something here but I thought it was meant to be fair play.

Worst still, they move on all the big earners, and poach all the best talent from fellow championship clubs on lesser wages, get promoted, and they are back in the big bucks again. It would appear that just one season in the premier league can set a club up forever, even if they yo-yo every other season.!!!

[quote][p][bold]swanagecherrie[/bold] wrote:
I don't think its about the fact that clubs are limited to losses most of us are moaning about. It's about having a level playing field i.e fair play. If you have spent wisely and built your club to a large one, big ground large fan base then you should have more money to spend. The only way to do this is at sometime someone has to invest. like Brighton has done. When, take Brighton for instance gets say 28000 fans @ say £35.00 = £980,000
23 home matches = 22540000 that doesn't even cover the 1st year parachute payment. Surly its up to the prem clubs to ensure that its in the players contract that wages drop if the club gets relegated then no need for parachute payments. Maybe I am not seeing something here but I thought it was meant to be fair play.[/p][/quote]Worst still, they move on all the big earners, and poach all the best talent from fellow championship clubs on lesser wages, get promoted, and they are back in the big bucks again. It would appear that just one season in the premier league can set a club up forever, even if they yo-yo every other season.!!!STEADY EDDIE 1 for the road

pabotto wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,

Not so, Demin has injected a great deal of money into the Club since Mitchell left, it has been re capitalized with a big increase in its share issue, I believe that the only loan outstanding is the £7m that was "fittered" away. But the Premier League is all about money, they would dearly love a "closed shop" with no promotion or relegation and by giving the relegated Clubs huge sums of money ensure that they have the best chance of getting back on the gravy train. Given that 75% have to support any changes in the FFP rules and over a third of the Clubs are getting significant "parachute" payments - there's not much chance of a change.

[quote][p][bold]pabotto[/bold] wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,[/p][/quote]Not so, Demin has injected a great deal of money into the Club since Mitchell left, it has been re capitalized with a big increase in its share issue, I believe that the only loan outstanding is the £7m that was "fittered" away. But the Premier League is all about money, they would dearly love a "closed shop" with no promotion or relegation and by giving the relegated Clubs huge sums of money ensure that they have the best chance of getting back on the gravy train. Given that 75% have to support any changes in the FFP rules and over a third of the Clubs are getting significant "parachute" payments - there's not much chance of a change.Square Old Codger

pabotto wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,

Chucking money in to a bucket again ???. . . . . With a £15 million deficit,. WE ARE GOING TO NEED A SKIP

[quote][p][bold]pabotto[/bold] wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,[/p][/quote]Chucking money in to a bucket again ???. . . . . With a £15 million deficit,. WE ARE GOING TO NEED A SKIPRED LETTER DAY

Interesting to read that the FL would introduce transfer embargo, points deductions or fines. If the authorities really wanted fairness they would have stripped Man City of the title rather than fining them after all the revenue from advertising and sponsorship far exceeds the fine imposed and they are very happy with that. It wouldn't be the case if they could not play in the Champions League as a result. Obviously the authorities can turn around and say we have imposed the maximum possible penalty (£) knowing very well that they would get the money. In our case they would probably deduct points as well as imposing a transfer embargo because they know that we don't have the money! the consequences of that would be catastrophic.

Punitive measures regardless of whether we think it to be fair or not will always have a greater impact on smaller clubs the reasons for this have already been aired in the above posts. i.e. parachute money, TV coverage etc.

As ever AFCB will have to earn the position in the league on merit because there will not be any help coming from the FL.

Interesting to read that the FL would introduce transfer embargo, points deductions or fines. If the authorities really wanted fairness they would have stripped Man City of the title rather than fining them after all the revenue from advertising and sponsorship far exceeds the fine imposed and they are very happy with that. It wouldn't be the case if they could not play in the Champions League as a result. Obviously the authorities can turn around and say we have imposed the maximum possible penalty (£) knowing very well that they would get the money. In our case they would probably deduct points as well as imposing a transfer embargo because they know that we don't have the money! the consequences of that would be catastrophic.
Punitive measures regardless of whether we think it to be fair or not will always have a greater impact on smaller clubs the reasons for this have already been aired in the above posts. i.e. parachute money, TV coverage etc.
As ever AFCB will have to earn the position in the league on merit because there will not be any help coming from the FL.nonnogeppetto

nonnogeppetto wrote:
Interesting to read that the FL would introduce transfer embargo, points deductions or fines. If the authorities really wanted fairness they would have stripped Man City of the title rather than fining them after all the revenue from advertising and sponsorship far exceeds the fine imposed and they are very happy with that. It wouldn't be the case if they could not play in the Champions League as a result. Obviously the authorities can turn around and say we have imposed the maximum possible penalty (£) knowing very well that they would get the money. In our case they would probably deduct points as well as imposing a transfer embargo because they know that we don't have the money! the consequences of that would be catastrophic.

Punitive measures regardless of whether we think it to be fair or not will always have a greater impact on smaller clubs the reasons for this have already been aired in the above posts. i.e. parachute money, TV coverage etc.

As ever AFCB will have to earn the position in the league on merit because there will not be any help coming from the FL.

If its FAIR it should be the same for all clubs i.e the only thing that would hurt ALL clubs. A points deduction on a sliding scale to how much you break the rules by. Seems to me ffp means fair for pounds another way for the prem to make money.

[quote][p][bold]nonnogeppetto[/bold] wrote:
Interesting to read that the FL would introduce transfer embargo, points deductions or fines. If the authorities really wanted fairness they would have stripped Man City of the title rather than fining them after all the revenue from advertising and sponsorship far exceeds the fine imposed and they are very happy with that. It wouldn't be the case if they could not play in the Champions League as a result. Obviously the authorities can turn around and say we have imposed the maximum possible penalty (£) knowing very well that they would get the money. In our case they would probably deduct points as well as imposing a transfer embargo because they know that we don't have the money! the consequences of that would be catastrophic.
Punitive measures regardless of whether we think it to be fair or not will always have a greater impact on smaller clubs the reasons for this have already been aired in the above posts. i.e. parachute money, TV coverage etc.
As ever AFCB will have to earn the position in the league on merit because there will not be any help coming from the FL.[/p][/quote]If its FAIR it should be the same for all clubs i.e the only thing that would hurt ALL clubs. A points deduction on a sliding scale to how much you break the rules by. Seems to me ffp means fair for pounds another way for the prem to make money.swanagecherrie

Better get us in the Premiership a bit sharpish Jeff then I notice Norwich are relegated but Delias managed to keep them in reasonable financial shape but we musnt plan for failure onwards and upwards I say

Better get us in the Premiership a bit sharpish Jeff then I notice Norwich are relegated but Delias managed to keep them in reasonable financial shape but we musnt plan for failure onwards and upwards I saybobsworthforever

All of these clubs have bigger capacities than us. I still think we could have filled in 4 sides of the ground during the summer.
Would've given us 13\14000 and seen if more folk would fill them.

More fans = more revenue - instead of waiting for a handout from one person.

All of these clubs have bigger capacities than us. I still think we could have filled in 4 sides of the ground during the summer.
Would've given us 13\14000 and seen if more folk would fill them.
More fans = more revenue - instead of waiting for a handout from one person.eaststandman

A lot is being made of Cardiff and Norwich having huge extra incomes. Let us not forget these clubs have spent huge amounts of money last season and are likely to be needing to trim their wage bills and sell players. We've seen consistently clubs coming down from the Premier League struggle to balance their books as well as compete in the Championship. Fulham are likely to lose half their squad due to FFP assuming they don't bounce straight back up.

A lot is being made of Cardiff and Norwich having huge extra incomes. Let us not forget these clubs have spent huge amounts of money last season and are likely to be needing to trim their wage bills and sell players. We've seen consistently clubs coming down from the Premier League struggle to balance their books as well as compete in the Championship. Fulham are likely to lose half their squad due to FFP assuming they don't bounce straight back up.YafcbY

the fair play rules as they stand are not fair and will never be as long as some clubs receive larger amounts of money than other clubs, but why would any club being run as a business willingly allow themselves to run up losses of millions of pounds, of any business is looking to improve but needs to invest to do so providing it is invested and not a loan then this must be given a green light

the fair play rules as they stand are not fair and will never be as long as some clubs receive larger amounts of money than other clubs, but why would any club being run as a business willingly allow themselves to run up losses of millions of pounds, of any business is looking to improve but needs to invest to do so providing it is invested and not a loan then this must be given a green lightdevon fan

pabotto wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,

Yes but equally as soon as we go up he is repaid.

[quote][p][bold]pabotto[/bold] wrote:
I'm pleased FFP is there. Much as I would love to spend loads of money and have great players fans and Mostyn need to realise one day we are going to end up chucking money in to buckets again. Denim is not investing in the club he is giving the club loans. These are 2 very different things. As soon as he wants out we are screwed,[/p][/quote]Yes but equally as soon as we go up he is repaid.canfordcherry

swanagecherrie wrote:
I don't think its about the fact that clubs are limited to losses most of us are moaning about. It's about having a level playing field i.e fair play. If you have spent wisely and built your club to a large one, big ground large fan base then you should have more money to spend. The only way to do this is at sometime someone has to invest. like Brighton has done. When, take Brighton for instance gets say 28000 fans @ say £35.00 = £980,000
23 home matches = 22540000 that doesn't even cover the 1st year parachute payment. Surly its up to the prem clubs to ensure that its in the players contract that wages drop if the club gets relegated then no need for parachute payments. Maybe I am not seeing something here but I thought it was meant to be fair play.

Worst still, they move on all the big earners, and poach all the best talent from fellow championship clubs on lesser wages, get promoted, and they are back in the big bucks again. It would appear that just one season in the premier league can set a club up forever, even if they yo-yo every other season.!!!

Think you will find our debt is small change compared to other Championship clubs.
QPR were 177 million in debt before yesterday, getting promoted will earn them 125million thats leaves them still with a debt of 52 million.
What would of happened if they had not gone up? Nothing.
Look at Man Us debt, over 700 million, and still spending, what happens. nothing.

[quote][p][bold]STEADY EDDIE 1 for the road[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]swanagecherrie[/bold] wrote:
I don't think its about the fact that clubs are limited to losses most of us are moaning about. It's about having a level playing field i.e fair play. If you have spent wisely and built your club to a large one, big ground large fan base then you should have more money to spend. The only way to do this is at sometime someone has to invest. like Brighton has done. When, take Brighton for instance gets say 28000 fans @ say £35.00 = £980,000
23 home matches = 22540000 that doesn't even cover the 1st year parachute payment. Surly its up to the prem clubs to ensure that its in the players contract that wages drop if the club gets relegated then no need for parachute payments. Maybe I am not seeing something here but I thought it was meant to be fair play.[/p][/quote]Worst still, they move on all the big earners, and poach all the best talent from fellow championship clubs on lesser wages, get promoted, and they are back in the big bucks again. It would appear that just one season in the premier league can set a club up forever, even if they yo-yo every other season.!!![/p][/quote]Think you will find our debt is small change compared to other Championship clubs.
QPR were 177 million in debt before yesterday, getting promoted will earn them 125million thats leaves them still with a debt of 52 million.
What would of happened if they had not gone up? Nothing.
Look at Man Us debt, over 700 million, and still spending, what happens. nothing.holdinkæft

swanagecherrie wrote:
I don't think its about the fact that clubs are limited to losses most of us are moaning about. It's about having a level playing field i.e fair play. If you have spent wisely and built your club to a large one, big ground large fan base then you should have more money to spend. The only way to do this is at sometime someone has to invest. like Brighton has done. When, take Brighton for instance gets say 28000 fans @ say £35.00 = £980,000
23 home matches = 22540000 that doesn't even cover the 1st year parachute payment. Surly its up to the prem clubs to ensure that its in the players contract that wages drop if the club gets relegated then no need for parachute payments. Maybe I am not seeing something here but I thought it was meant to be fair play.

Worst still, they move on all the big earners, and poach all the best talent from fellow championship clubs on lesser wages, get promoted, and they are back in the big bucks again. It would appear that just one season in the premier league can set a club up forever, even if they yo-yo every other season.!!!

Think you will find our debt is small change compared to other Championship clubs.
QPR were 177 million in debt before yesterday, getting promoted will earn them 125million thats leaves them still with a debt of 52 million.
What would of happened if they had not gone up? Nothing.
Look at Man Us debt, over 700 million, and still spending, what happens. nothing.

Collectively championship clubs are over a BILLION POUNDS in debt according to an analyst interviewed on talksport in the week. That is an average of just over 46.5 million per club.
Makes our 15m look like small change as you put it.

[quote][p][bold]holdinkæft[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]STEADY EDDIE 1 for the road[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]swanagecherrie[/bold] wrote:
I don't think its about the fact that clubs are limited to losses most of us are moaning about. It's about having a level playing field i.e fair play. If you have spent wisely and built your club to a large one, big ground large fan base then you should have more money to spend. The only way to do this is at sometime someone has to invest. like Brighton has done. When, take Brighton for instance gets say 28000 fans @ say £35.00 = £980,000
23 home matches = 22540000 that doesn't even cover the 1st year parachute payment. Surly its up to the prem clubs to ensure that its in the players contract that wages drop if the club gets relegated then no need for parachute payments. Maybe I am not seeing something here but I thought it was meant to be fair play.[/p][/quote]Worst still, they move on all the big earners, and poach all the best talent from fellow championship clubs on lesser wages, get promoted, and they are back in the big bucks again. It would appear that just one season in the premier league can set a club up forever, even if they yo-yo every other season.!!![/p][/quote]Think you will find our debt is small change compared to other Championship clubs.
QPR were 177 million in debt before yesterday, getting promoted will earn them 125million thats leaves them still with a debt of 52 million.
What would of happened if they had not gone up? Nothing.
Look at Man Us debt, over 700 million, and still spending, what happens. nothing.[/p][/quote]Collectively championship clubs are over a BILLION POUNDS in debt according to an analyst interviewed on talksport in the week. That is an average of just over 46.5 million per club.
Makes our 15m look like small change as you put it.STEADY EDDIE 1 for the road